WATER SUPPLY GAINS FOR NEW YORK.

WATER SUPPLY GAINS FOR NEW YORK.

Two important decisions have jujst been handed down in the proceedings for the acquisition of lands and fresh water lakes for the water supply of New York city. These decisions, in addition to saving the city $100,000, establish a precedent which must necessarily govern the acquisition of all other water ponds or streams in the State. At lake Gleneida, Putnam county, the owner of the outlet also owned the right to raise and lower the waters about four feet. He attempted to collect from this city the value of this water to the city of New York and its market value for storage purposes. The position was adopted by the commissioners and an award of $50,000 was made. The motion to set aside the award was granted by Justice Dickey, and an appeal was taken to the Appellate division, second department. The decision referred to as just made decides the whole question in favor of the city. The owner of the outlet cannot collect the value of the water to the city, neither can he receive its value for storage purposes, there being no ownership in water. At lake Gilead, Putnam county, in 1870, before the present system of storage reservoirs owned by the city was available, Tweed purchased the outlet and the farm adjoining. The waters of this lake were drawn down to the utmost capacity to avert a water famine. From that time to the present the lake has been the subject of litigation. Frederick Philipse claimed to own the bed of the lake, and his representatives sought to recover from this city a sum which would represent the market value of all the water which has been drawn from 1870 and to collect $75,000 for the best of the lake and the waters of the lake. The claim Was rejected as far as the ownership of water was concerned, and an award made of $6,750. On the motion to confirm the report before Justice Keogh the position of the city was contested by the attorneys for the Philipse heirs. The justice decided that the city’s position was correctly taken and that there could be no ownership in running water, and that the ownership of the bed of the lake did not carry with it the ownership of the water.

Two important decisions have jujst been handed down in the proceedings for the acquisition of lands and fresh water lakes for the water supply of New York city. These decisions, in addition to saving the city $100,000, establish a precedent which must necessarily govern the acquisition of all other water ponds or streams in the State. At lake Gleneida, Putnam county, the owner of the outlet also owned the right to raise and lower the waters about four feet. He attempted to collect from this city the value of this water to the city of New York and its market value for storage purposes. The position was adopted by the commissioners and an award of $50,000 was made. The motion to set aside the award was granted by Justice Dickey, and an appeal was taken to the Appellate division, second department. The decision referred to as just made decides the whole question in favor of the city. The owner of the outlet cannot collect the value of the water to the city, neither can he receive its value for storage purposes, there being no ownership in water. At lake Gilead, Putnam county, in 1870, before the present system of storage reservoirs owned by the city was available, Tweed purchased the outlet and the farm adjoining. The waters of this lake were drawn down to the utmost capacity to avert a water famine. From that time to the present the lake has been the subject of litigation. Frederick Philipse claimed to own the bed of the lake, and his representatives sought to recover from this city a sum which would represent the market value of all the water which has been drawn from 1870 and to collect $75,000 for the best of the lake and the waters of the lake. The claim Was rejected as far as the ownership of water was concerned, and an award made of $6,750. On the motion to confirm the report before Justice Keogh the position of the city was contested by the attorneys for the Philipse heirs. The justice decided that the city’s position was correctly taken and that there could be no ownership in running water, and that the ownership of the bed of the lake did not carry with it the ownership of the water.